Bill Lueders
Rep. Dean Knudson (left) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos announce plans to replace the Government Accountability Board.
Like all ideas that are big, bold and possibly bad, this one is being pitched as a reform, a necessary corrective, a step out of the darkness and into the light.
“We are beginning the process of ending the failed experiment of the Government Accountability Board,” state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced at a press conference this afternoon in the state Capitol. “We created it with the best of intentions, but now it’s the time to make a change.”
Vos and Rep. Dean Knudson (R-Hudson) said they are introducing legislation to split the GAB into two agencies, both of which will be governed by equal numbers of partisan political appointees — half Democratic, half Republican. One commission would oversee elections, the other state laws governing ethics, campaign spending and lobbying.
Knudson billed the move as necessary to enhance “accountability and transparency.”
The proposed changes would essentially restore the two-board system that the GAB was created in 2007 to replace. That system was widely seen as ineffective and inefficient, because having equal numbers of partisans means either party can block any action or measure from passing.
It was to cure this ill that the GAB was created as a nonpartisan body, made up of six former judges appointed by the governor. It has statutory authority to spend as much as is needed on investigations. The proposed new commissions would have to get permission from state officials to spend more than $25,000 on any given investigation, potentially putting control of the pursestrings into the hands of the people facing investigation.
Common Cause in Wisconsin, a nonprofit group that focuses on issues under the GAB’s purview, said in a statement that the proposed changes would turn the widely respected GAB into a “toothless backwater state agency completely under the control of partisan politicians.”
At the same press conference, Vos announced plans to unveil a bill to revamp the state’s campaign finance laws, as is needed because federal and state court rulings have blown so many holes in the old regulations.
The proposed new law, Vos said, will expressly allow corporations to contribute to political parties and committees, while still prohibiting them from directly funding candidates. It will also exclude from state regulation groups that engage in election-related communications that fall short of expressly telling people how to vote. And it will double the existing upper limits for contributions from individuals for various offices.
Asked if candidates and their campaigns would be able to coordinate with interest groups engaged in non-explicit advocacy, Vos stated that “courts have already said coordination” is not forbidden.
Jay Heck of Common Cause, who attended the press conference, is aghast at this interpretation.
“That’s not settled law,” Heck says. While the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently reached this conclusion in what he called an “outlier decision that’s going to be appealed,” no federal court has said it is okay for candidates and outside groups to coordinate. If this is allowed, Heck said, then there are effectively no limits on contributions, as candidates can simply direct donations above the legal limit to outside groups and then coordinate ways that these funds can be spent.
Vos said other changes in the bill would increase transparency, such as in requiring that candidates file disclosure forms more often. And he said the new ethics board will have greater freedom to post the advice given in response to official inquiries — without noting that this was how things used to work until the Legislature insisted on greater secrecy when it created the GAB.
Knudson also spoke of ways that the new commissions will be tougher and more vigilant. For instance, he said, the GAB has failed to use the authority it has to withhold the pay of public officials who fail to file annual required statements of economic interest on time. And he chided the GAB for not being vigilant enough about conducting post-election audits of voter rolls to see if they include felons not legally allowed to vote.
Kevin Kennedy, the GAB’s director and general counsel, told reporters afterwards that “none of the examples given were completely accurate.” He indicated that the GAB was indeed checking to make sure felons didn’t vote. Elsewhere, GAB officials have noted that their goal is compliance, not punishment, so they will generally allow officials to file late or correct errors without penalty.
In an email to Isthmus, GAB spokesman Reid Magney elaborated: “While it’s true that we have the power to order someone’s paycheck to be withheld, the reality is that it has never been necessary. The Legislative Audit Bureau found that only 8% of SEI’s are filed late. Our experience is that most of those are only a few days late. We contact the late official’s employing agency immediately to make sure it does get filed right away.”
Heck still has a sliver of hope that the Senate might reject the changes to the GAB, which would require three Republicans to vote against it. He notes that 12 current Republican members of the state Senate voted in 2007 to do away with a two-board system and create the GAB.
On the other hand, Heck finds it hard to believe the Republicans would have unveiled the bill if they did not have the requisite votes lined up. For this reason, he says, “I’m not optimistic.”
